Victims of our Visions: Asa Winstanley on the Kibbutzim

The idea of the kibbutzim was beguiling to many socialist Jews looking at different ways of living in the world: agri­cul­tural communes, the seeds of the new society ger­mi­nat­ing in the inter­stices of the old, and all that sac­cha­rine stuff. The anarchist publisher AK Press recently put out a book by James Horrox entitled, A Living Rev­o­lu­tion: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement. It was very pos­i­tively reviewed by Keith Kahn-Harris in the Forward (not a shock). Curious to see what exactly Horrox had to say, I had been thinking of reading it. Asa Win­stan­ley has convinced me that it may not be worth it. In a review essay orig­i­nally published in the New Left Project, Win­stan­ley dissects the Utopian visions of the founders of the kibbutzim by sharply reminding us that they were nearly uniformly racist insti­tu­tions, unprin­ci­pled and oppor­tunis­tic in their pur­port­edly socialist com­mit­ments, and far too fre­quently built on ille­git­i­mately bought or stolen land. For a book focusing on anarchism in the kibbutz movement, it’s important to keep in mind that anarchism is above all “an ethical discourse about rev­o­lu­tion­ary practice,” as David Graeber puts it. Anarchist institution-building tied to racist land-grabbing cannot be anarchist or socialist. As Moshe Machover recently wrote, “Israeli social­ists, whether Hebrew or Arab, fight against the Zionist project and its practices: coloni­sa­tion, dis­pos­ses­sion, dis­crim­i­na­tion; and for equal rights and universal lib­er­a­tion.” Odd of AK Press, given its amazing track record, to have published the book at all, I think.

In his seminal book Expulsion of the Pales­tini­ans, Pales­tin­ian scholar Nur Masalha writes of Israel Zangwill’s infamous slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land” that it was not intended as a literal demo­graphic assess­ment: “[Zionists] did not mean that there were no people in Palestine, but that there were no people worth con­sid­er­ing within the framework of the notions of European supremacy that then held sway” [1].

James Horrox’s book on anarchism in the kibbutz movement mar­gin­alises the Pales­tin­ian people in a similar way – they do not really exist in his narrative of how the Israeli col­lec­tive set­tle­ments were estab­lished and then func­tioned. He is writing about Palestine, a country whose pop­u­la­tion was around 90% Arab (Christian and Muslim) when the first kibbutz was estab­lished in 1910, as if its primary impor­tance was as a plaything for European exper­i­ments in group living [2].

The book is a strange attempt to blend Zionist mythology with anarchism. In the forward, Israeli anarchist Uri Gordon questions “the validity of applying anti-colonial hindsight to people that any pro­gres­sive would otherwise consider economic migrants or refugees” (p. iv).

Gordon is, in part, referring to the Jewish refugees who fled the Russian Empire because of anti­se­mitic pogroms in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Horrox similarly claims that “Palestine was rapidly becoming the des­ti­na­tion of choice for Jewish refugees” with the rise of the Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion (later renamed the World Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion) and the pogroms of 1903–1906 (p. 14). In reality it was a rel­a­tively small minority of ide­o­log­i­cal Zionists who chose to go to Palestine. As Mike Marqusee points out in his extra­or­di­nary memoir, 1.7 million of the 2 million Russian Jewish refugees between 1881 and 1921 in fact left for the USA [3]. Estimates suggest that from the mid-1850s to 1914, the number of Jews who fled Czarist Russia was about 2.5 million of whom about 50,000 (2%) emigrated to Palestine [4].

Con­nec­tions

Although very few in the kibbutz movement ever explic­itly called them­selves anar­chists, there does seem to have been a certain degree of anarchist influence on some kibbutz thinkers in the early period. Horrox examines even the most tenuous con­nec­tions between the kibbutz movement and anarchist thinkers, but neglects to address a far more pertinent question: if a key aim of leftist anarchism is a society free of oppres­sion and exploita­tion, how, in fact, did the kibbutz founders treat the indige­nous Arabs of Palestine?

In this respect, Horrox displays scant regard for basic his­tor­i­cal fact. He correctly starts his narrative during the period in which Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, but ignores the impact Zionist coloni­sa­tion projects such as the kibbutzim had on the Pales­tin­ian Arabs. He makes reference to the claims of groups such Hashomer Hatzair to be in favour of “Arab-Jewish coop­er­a­tion” but doesn’t assess how these claims played out in reality.

Horrox entirely neglects the con­tem­po­rary context. Rashid Khalidi points out that the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 had began to slowly con­cen­trate state land in the hands of a few private owners [5]. The Pales­tin­ian fellahin (peasant farmers) often worked such state land, holding it on a communal basis for gen­er­a­tions. The new law meant that canny busi­ness­men began to register large tracts of land as their personal property. Some of the Arab merchant class, such as the Sursuq family of Beirut, did land deals with the newly estab­lished Zionist agencies. The fellahin who actually worked the land in question had no say.

Khalidi notes that the first wave of colonists (1882–1903 – often called the First Aliyah) were “pragmatic and rel­a­tively un-ideological”. After disputes between the fellahin and their new Jewish landown­ers, the settlers often ended up leasing the land back to its occupants or “came to treat the fellahin little dif­fer­ently than had their former Arab landlords. They dis­ap­pro­pri­ated the fellahin, but in most cases they did not fully dis­pos­sess them, as they inte­grated them into plantation-style colonies” [6]. The First Aliyah rep­re­sented a tra­di­tional colonial enter­prise that sought to exploit, not expel.

The more staunchly Zionist settlers of the second wave (or Second Aliyah) had different ideas. Their ideology was “Hebrew labour,” and had what Khalidi describes as “a more aggres­sive, forceful attitude to the Arabs” [7]. Horrox seems unper­turbed at the future kib­butzniks’ horror to find Arab workers on the land: “even more dis­tress­ing to the newcomers was the fact that the First Aliyah Jews had resorted to hiring Arab workers” (p. 14).Horrox makes allowance for this racist attitude by claiming the colonists did not want to be “a class of bourgeois Jewish landown­ers exploit­ing the indige­nous Arab pop­u­la­tion” (p. 15). But this is a faux-socialist rationalisation.

In reality, the new Zionist landown­ers, those Horrox argues were anarchist-influenced, often had to rely on the violence of the Ottoman state or their own militias to evict Pales­tini­ans from land they wanted for them­selves. Khalidi describes how this happened:

“The process would begin with the purchase of land, generally from an absentee landlord, followed by the impo­si­tion of a new order on the existing Arab cul­ti­va­tors – sometimes involving their trans­for­ma­tion into tenant-farmers or agri­cul­tural laborers, and sometimes their expulsion – and finally the set­tle­ment of new Jewish immi­grants… most of the land purchased… was fertile and therefore inhabited, and fellahin with long-standing tra­di­tional rights of tenure fre­quently stood in the way… The fellahin naturally con­sid­ered the land to be theirs, and they would often discover that they had ceased to be the legal owners… only when the land was sold by an absentee landlord to a Zionist set­tle­ment agency” [8].

Horrox notes that the first kibbutz was Degania. A group of Russian Zionists had become disgusted by the way Rishon Le Zion “and other farms like it were run ‘with their Jewish overseers, Arab peasant labourers, and Bedouin guards’.” In October 1909, while working a different farm, a strike broke out because “Jewish workers decided they could no longer put up with the oppres­sive, arbitrary admin­is­tra­tion and the use of hired Arab labour” (pp. 16–17, emphasis mine). From this, a small group broke away to found Degania in 1910 “on a piece of land on the banks of the Jordan River called Umm Juni” (p. 18)

In one footnote Horrox admits that “[a] sizeable part of this land, including the plot at Umm Juni, was bought from absentee landlords – in Degania’s case the Sursuk family of Beirut… settlers paid often out­landish sums in com­pen­sa­tion to tenant farmers” (p. 141, note 38). This offer of com­pen­sa­tion for the fait accompli of eviction misses the point, as Khalidi explains:

“Sometimes, the fellahin accepted com­pen­sa­tion from Jewish set­tle­ment bodies, pre­sum­ably feeling them­selves unable to stand up to the new owners of the land… But at other times, they resisted their dis­pos­ses­sion, on occasion with violence. In such cases, it was necessary for the pur­chasers to depend on the power of the state, whether the Ottoman, or, later on, the British Mandatory author­i­ties, to enable them to take control” [9].

The Zionist Movement

Horrox claims that Degania’s “emergence was not down to any pre­med­i­tated social or economic planning on the part of the Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion” (p. 16). In fact, the real force behind Degania was Arthur Ruppin, a key Zionist movement official respon­si­ble for land acqui­si­tion. Here Horrox con­tra­dicts himself: he admits Ruppin funded Degania, but still argues that the settlers them­selves were the prime agents of change behind the new set­tle­ment. His argument in favour of the primacy of ideology rather than immediate prag­ma­tism is uncon­vinc­ing, espe­cially as he is forced to narrate the key role played by the Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion. In reality, the early communal set­tle­ments were estab­lished because they were the cheapest and most efficient way of settling the land.

As the rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Theodore Herzl’s Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion, Ruppin estab­lished the Palestine Office in 1908. The fore­run­ner of the Jewish Agency, the office was “the central agency for Zionist set­tle­ment activ­i­ties in Palestine” [10]. He was also a racist who had deeply inter­nalised the anti­semitism of his native German society: “I hate the wild thorns of Judaism,” a 17-year-old Ruppin wrote in his diary, “more than the worst anti-Semite” [11]. In 1942, not long before he died, Ruppin wrote that “the shape of the nose” can give us an indi­ca­tion of racial affinity, and he sketched a series of Jewish “types”. He attached to each type names of Zionist leaders including Herzl and Menachem Ussishkin [12].

Horrox claims that Degania rep­re­sented “a permanent social system in which the group assumed complete respon­si­bil­ity for the farm and developed it according to its own prin­ci­ples” and that “private property was non-existent” (p. 18). But Bloom gives a rather different picture. He notes that the workers actually had to sign a contract with the Palestine Office (PO):

“‘We, the under­signed workers, are obliged to work for the PLDC [Palestine Land Devel­op­ment Company] and to follow the instruc­tion of its clerks’… The contract noted explic­itly that the inventory was the property of the PO” [13].

Ruppin was under no illusions about Palestine being empty. He would write in 1938: “I do not believe in the transfer of an indi­vid­ual. I believe in the transfer of entire villages”. As Israeli historian Tom Segev aptly sum­marises: “’[d]isappearing’ the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream” [14].

Horrox accepts the official kibbutz narrative in relation to the Pales­tini­ans uncrit­i­cally. While he describes early kibbutz ide­o­logues as “paci­fistic and anti-militarist” (p. 27, see also p. 29), the reality of the kibbutzim’s estab­lish­ment was very different. In fact the kibbutzim led directly to the estab­lish­ment of the first Zionist militias.

A set­tle­ment plan that Horrox argues was influ­enced by the famous Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin was “treated pos­i­tively by Zionist leaders and actu­alised to a certain degree in the short-lived Merhavia coop­er­a­tive” (p. 32). But Horrox ignores, or does not know, the reality of Merhavia’s establishment.

As recounted by Khalidi, Ruppin’s Jewish National Fund (JNF) made a deal with Beirut landlord Elias Sursuq [15]. Against the will of the Pales­tin­ian farmers who had worked the same land for gen­er­a­tions, he bought the land of al-Fula out from under­neath them. Shukri al-‘Asali, the Arab governor of Nazareth region, heard that thirty armed members of the Zionist militia Ha-shomer had been sent to occupy al-Fula on the instruc­tions of the JNF. He responded by dis­patch­ing “a large body of troops” to drive them away. This was to prove only a temporary respite, as his Turkish superior overruled his insub­or­di­na­tion and expelled the fellahin, allowing the estab­lish­ment of Merhavia on the lands of al-Fula in January 1911.

Horrox’s delusions sometimes reach farcical levels. At one point he describes Ha-shomer as a “Zionist scouting organ­i­sa­tion” (p. 44 – he later describes them as a “defence organ­i­sa­tion”). In fact Ha-shomer was one of the first Zionist militia groups to be estab­lished in Palestine (in 1909) [16].

A different group, Hashomer Hatzair, Horrox notes were “at the forefront of the process of kibbutz-building” during this period (p. 44). They estab­lished a fed­er­a­tion that would form “the ide­o­log­i­cal backbone of the kibbutz movement” from 1927 onwards, by which time there were a number of kibbutzim in existence (p. 44). Writing of the period after the Nakba (the 1948 ethnic cleansing of half the Pales­tin­ian Arabs from Palestine), Ilan Pappe says of Hashomer Hatzair that it “offi­cially carried the slogan of bi-national coex­is­tence… It was the most leftist, but at the same time proved to be the greediest, of the three major kibbutz movements in the young state of Israel” and that it was the “main ben­e­fi­ciary” of a “campaign of land and village con­fis­ca­tions” from Pales­tini­ans in the newly declared Israel between 1949 and 1954 [17].

Yosef Baratz, who Horrox ref­er­ences several times and correctly describes as a pioneer of the kibbutz movement, said at the Twentieth Zionist Congress in 1937:

“Didn’t we transfer Arabs from D’ganya, Keneret, Merhavya, and Mishmar Haemek? I do remember the nights on which Shmuel Dayan [the father of Moshe Dayan] and I were called to Merhavya to help ‘Hashomer’… carrying out [Arab] evac­u­a­tion. What was the sin in that?… Members of Hashomer Hatza’ir are saying: by the estab­lish­ment of a Hebrew state [a partition proposal] we are creating a barrier between us and the Arabs. Isn’t such a barrier already existing and permanent in the country? Aren’t we building exclusive train stations, an exclusive post service, exclusive gov­ern­ment office, an exclusive sea port, exclusive roads, and an exclusive economy as far as possible?” [18]”

Masalha notes that as a founder member of Degania (which he translit­er­ates as D’ganya) Baratz had witnessed such “transfer” first hand. His remarks were addressed to the Hashomer Hatzair delegates, who had argued against plans to uproot the Arabs, but only because they were “dangerous” and “anti-socialist”.

On page 82, Horrox says correctly that the kibbutzim have “always been connected to the country’s trade union movement, the Histadrut”. But he neglects to inform us that this racist union fed­er­a­tion barred Arabs from its mem­ber­ship until 1959 [19].

Horrox writes on page 87 that the Pales­tin­ian Arab and Zionist “economies were largely inte­grated” before the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939. The Zionists, however, had done all they could to dis­cour­age Arab-Jewish contact and mixed labour. David Hacohen, the director of the Histadrut’s con­struc­tion company, later recalled arguing in favour of racial seg­re­ga­tion during his student years in London, not long after the First World War:

“When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African… I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs into my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to house­wives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there… To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish house­wives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies to Keren Kayemet [Jewish National Fund] that sent [Zionist Organ­i­sa­tion agent Yehoshua] Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendis [landown­ers] and to throw the fellahin off the land… to do all that was not easy.” [20]

Horrox is critical of the kibbutz movement, but only in narrow terms that have nothing to do with its crimes against the native pop­u­la­tion. His critique relates to dif­fer­ences between factions of Zionism, and how the “dream” was “betrayed” by leaders such as David Ben-Gurion who favoured a Jewish state over “an organic com­mon­wealth” (pp. 88–90). In reality it is clear that, as Yosef Baratz pointed out at the Twentieth Zionist Congress, the Pales­tini­ans were either excluded or “trans­ferred” from this “commonwealth”.

Nar­row­ness

Horrox refers to the “different types of power networks that have com­pli­cated” the kibbutzim’s existence (p. 9). His argument seems to be that they were essen­tially well-intended, but lost their way because of a drift towards Marxism, and betrayal by the Zionist lead­er­ship. To Horrox, it seems, the crimes of Zionism are only worth men­tion­ing when they caused dis­com­fort to the settlers’ exper­i­ments in col­lec­tive rural life – what Segev describes as “a hyper­in­tense ado­les­cent fantasy come true” [21]. His approach divorces the kibbutzim from their colonial context, and focuses on form over substance.

Any attempt at under­stand­ing the kibbutzim’s impact on the native Pales­tin­ian pop­u­la­tion is either ignored, or dismissed as passing “judgement on the efforts of the past in light of the injus­tices of the present” (Gordon in the foreword – p. iv). It is as if the Zionist movement and the kibbutzim were all sweetness and light up until a few years ago. This narrative of a well-intended exper­i­ment that ulti­mately went wrong should be rec­og­niz­able to anyone familiar with the standard apolo­get­ics for British or American imperialism.

Segev argues that the most important con­tri­bu­tion of the kibbutz movement to Zionism was “military, not economic or social. They were guardians of Zionist land, and their patterns of set­tle­ment would to a great extend determine the country’s borders” [22]. And it is indeed true that the kibbutzim were the vanguard of Israel’s mil­i­tarism and aggres­sion. As Horrox admits, “the country’s fiercest fighters were drawn from the kibbutzim, including the… core military lead­er­ship” and Moshe Dayan, later one of Israel’s most infamous generals, was one of the first people to be born on Degania (p. 116). Artzi, the kibbutz fed­er­a­tion founded by Hashomer Hatzair, nurtured the Palmach – the elite units of the Haganah militia – which were often based in kibbutzim [23]. The Palmach carried out some of the main ethnic cleansing oper­a­tions against the Pales­tini­ans in 1948 [24].

The main cause of the book’s problems is the nar­row­ness of its source material. Horrox’s footnotes demon­strate an almost exclusive reliance on Zionist his­to­ri­ans (along with some anarchist lit­er­a­ture), and no Pales­tin­ian or other Arab his­to­ri­ans or sources what­so­ever. He seems to rely mostly on kibbutz his­to­ri­ans such as Avarham Yassour and Yacov Oved, essen­tially accepting the kibbutz movement’s internal narrative as given. For example, his account of the foun­da­tion of Degania is largely culled from Baratz’s memoir.

Another factor seems to have been tension between the book’s author and publisher AK Press (a small anarchist press). While reading this book, I mentioned on Twitter what I thought of it. James Horrox must have seen this, as he emailed me out of the blue to say he had “disowned that book as soon as it was released” and wondered if I would give it a worse review than he could. And indeed, the book does not appear on his website (accessed 21^st September). I ques­tioned him a little more and he said the reasons behind his attempt to “strike it from the record” were partly that his opinions had since changed (he’d written the original version as his under­grad­u­ate dis­ser­ta­tion) and partly because AK had “distorted [the book] beyond all recog­ni­tion from what I’d set out to write” (Cor­re­spon­dence with the author, 17^th of August).

This claim sits uncom­fort­ably with the glowing praise he heaps on his editor in the book’s acknowl­edge­ments. He later clarified that:

‘my main criticism is that the book was turned into a history, whereas it was orig­i­nally intended simply as a study of the internal workings of the kibbutz’ (Cor­re­spon­dence with author, 27^th of August).

In other words, he had orig­i­nally wanted the book to be even more isolated from history than it is now. I contacted AK Press for their side of the story. A spokesper­son told me the following:

‘AK always checks changes, revisions, additions, and anything else with our authors… James’s book was def­i­nitely no exception; he was involved in the editorial process right up to the last moment… that rela­tion­ship isn’t going to work out every time, and this is, appar­ently, just one of those times. It’s def­i­nitely a shame that James is so unhappy with the book, I’m very sorry to hear that, because we really do wish him nothing but the best.’ (Cor­re­spon­dence with AK Press US pub­lish­ing depart­ment, 27–28 August)

Another Anarchism is Possible

There is a different anarchist narrative, as the 1938 debate between Emma Goldman and Reginald Reynolds on the pages of the long-running anarchist newspaper Freedom shows. Goldman aston­ish­ingly offered a defence of the settlers, claiming in all seri­ous­ness that “the land should belong to those who till the soil” – a principle she ignored for the Pales­tin­ian fellahin kicked off that same land. Freedom also published an article titled “Anarchist Tactic for Palestine”, Albert Meltzer’s March 1939 denun­ci­a­tion of Zionism (recently repub­lished in Freedom): “The struggle must be against impe­ri­al­ism first, Zionism second, and lastly against the bourgeois nation­al­ist gov­ern­ment when created” [25].

There are also the Anar­chists Against the Wall (AATW), the small network of committed Israeli activists deeply involved in sol­i­dar­ity demon­stra­tions all over occupied Palestine. Dis­grace­fully for anyone who has spent any time working in sol­i­dar­ity actions in the West Bank, Horrox actually crit­i­cises AATW for “focusing on the Occu­pa­tion and Pales­tin­ian sol­i­dar­ity actions” (p. 120) and also for being so highly critical of the kibbutzim’s militarism.

The general tenor of the book is summed up in Horrox’s intro­duc­tion. There, he quotes English anarchist Colin Ward, to argue that we need to under­stand the kibbutzim “without reference to the functions they have performed in the last decades in the service of Israeli nation­al­ism and impe­ri­al­ism” (p. 8). Mike Marqusee describes such attitudes as the left’s “failure to imagine the people on the receiving end of your dreams. It’s a failure rooted in Western and white supremacy” [26].

The quotes from anar­chists in support of the kibbutzim that Horrox gathers seem to demon­strate that such colonial blindness on even the radical left has not gone away. Some Western anar­chists, it seems, are just as sus­cep­ti­ble to colonial logic as those who claimed, in the words of 1930s Labour Party leader Herbert Morrison, that “[t]he Jews have proved to be first class col­o­niz­ers, to have the real good old Empire qualities” [27].

This of course relates to the wider question of European social democracy’s active par­tic­i­pa­tion in impe­ri­al­ism, as it founded its welfare states based on the oppres­sion of the Third World. The book is a wasted oppor­tu­nity, and its pub­li­ca­tion is a regres­sive step at a time when many in the Western left are reassess­ing their his­tor­i­cal alignment with Israel.

State or no state, left-wing or right-wing: it makes little dif­fer­ence to those on “the receiving end of your dreams”. The logic of colo­nial­ism was, and still is, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Many thanks to Tony Green­stein for his important con­tri­bu­tion to this essay.

Asa Win­stan­ley is an inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ist based in London who has lived in and reported from occupied Palestine. His website is www.winstanleys.org.

Ref­er­ences

[1] Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Pales­tini­ans: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought: 1882–1948, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992, p. 6

[2] Rashid Khalidi, Pales­tin­ian Identity: The Con­struc­tion of Modern National Con­scious­ness, Columbia Uni­ver­sity Press, 1997, p. 96

[3] Mike Marqusee, If I am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew, Verso, 2010, p. 9

[4] History, Ency­clopae­dia Judaica, 1971, vol. 8, col. 729–730

[5] Khalidi, pp. 94–96

[6] Khalidi, p. 100

[7] Khalidi, p. 100

[8] Khalidi, pp. 98–99

[9] Khalidi, p.102, emphasis mine

[10] Etan Bloom, ‘Arthur Ruppin and the Pro­duc­tion of the Modern Hebrew Culture’, Ph.D. Dis­ser­ta­tion, Tel Aviv: Porter School of Cultural Studies, 2009; p. 1, note 1

[11] Bloom, p. 42

[12] Bloom, p. 126

[13] Bloom, p. 241

[14] Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, Abacus, 2001, p. 405

[15] Khalidi, pp. 107–109

[16] Khalidi, pp. 105–106. He also cites General Yigal Allon to the effect that Ha-shomer were the nucleus of the Haganah, itself the fore­run­ner of the Israeli military

[17] Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine, Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press, second edition 2006, p. 146

[18] Masalha, p. 75

[19] Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps, third edition 1979, p. 57; Tony Green­stein, “Histadrut: Israel’s racist ‘trade union’”, The Elec­tronic Intifada, 10 March 2009.

[20] David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, third edition 2003, p. 185; see also Green­stein, “Histadrut”.

[21] Segev, p. 250

[22] Segev, p. 249

[23] Lawrence Joffe, “100 years of Kibbutzim”, Jewish Quarterly, 23 July 2010

[24] Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, 2006, p. 45

[25] This article and the con­tro­versy between Reynolds and Goldman are collected in British Impe­ri­al­ism and the Palestine Crisis: Selec­tions from the Anarchist Journal Freedom, 1938–1948, Freedom Press, 1989.

[26] Marqusee, p. 210

[27] Marqusee, p. 127

Tech­no­rati Tags: anarchism, Asa Win­stan­ley, James Horrox, Keith Kahn-Harris, kibbutz, New Left Project, Nur Masalha, Socialism, Zionism

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.